Archangel,
But to imply that neanderthal children had no brow ridges at all and that they magically appeared only in adults defies common sense.
What, like apes, & even some people you mean?
But the back story which goes along with it is where the fraud comes into play as you actually affiliate this fossil as a human ancestor at all.
But it's not deliberate misinformation, ergo it's not fraud.
They are renditions, impressions and assumptions made by people who are in fact selling a product to the public, and that product is that evolution is rational and proven science. This is fraud and despicable in its inaccuracy as it attempts to portray an image which is no more true or factual than Aesop's fables.
It's not fraud
because there is no deliberate falsehood being perpetrated. It's undespicably not fraudulent.
I mean, it not only misrepresent the origins of human beings, it misrepresents the history of the Apes these fossils actually represent in reality since they have no true relationship to human beings at all according to my interpretation of the evidence.
What you said was no more fraudulent than the people you asert are frudulent. But judging your above comment by your own standards makes you "despicably fraudulent"!
Annoying isn't it?
uninformed public which believes that if it gets published, it must be founded in FACT, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, no fraud is evident.
But the Times didn't just make this stuff up willy nilly, it was spoon fed to them, and I quote: "In a new analysis released Monday, anthropologists suggested"
This is 100% accurate, so no fraud was perpetrated. Anthropologists did suggest...
It also says: "Aggression just forms part of human behavior," said Christoph Zollikofer of the University of Zurich, leader of the team of researchers from France and Switzerland who examined the skull.
Again, 100% accurate, no fraud here!
Humans "need reconciliation and affection as well, and the experience here suggests a broad spectrum of behaviors."
Ooh, what a liar! No fraud here, this is broadly true.
You can't deny that the evolution community feeds into the fraud of disseminating false
Yes, I can deny it. You have provided no evidence that falsehoods have deliberately been perpetrated.
And from this skeletal record we get this life size model which is part of the official museum exhibit.
An artists impression based on fossil evidence is fraudulent? I think not. No-one has deliberately perpetrated a falsehood here, either. No fraud once again.
The problem, Archangel, is that you don't have the slightest clue as to what "fraud" means, do you? Somebody "getting it wrong" in your opinion does not constitute fraud.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't